Page One

Berkeley filed suit Wednesday against UC Berkeley, charging that the university’s Long Range Development Plan violated state law and would sanction a university building boom, leaving residents to pay for strained city services and clogged roads. 

“The university asked us to sign the equivalent of a blank check that would allow it to build wherever, whenever, and however it would like,” said Mayor Tom Bates. “This lawsuit firmly states that we are not signing anything until we know what we are buying.” 

The university’s plan, which guides future development on and off campus through 2020, projects 2,600 new dormitory beds, between 1,800 and 2.300 new parking spaces and 2.2 million square feet in new academic and administrative space. 

The city contends that the plan violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the university willfully withheld information about specific projects it plans to build and failed to offer adequate measures to lessen the impact of university growth on the city. 

Antonio Rossman, a land use attorney who teaches at Boalt Hall, said he likes the city’s chances to prevail. In 1978, he successfully sued UCLA in a similar case. 

“At the moment, my sense is that the city has the advantage on the merits of the case,” Rossman said. 

The city is asking the judge to throw out the current environmental study of the plan and make the university provide further analyses and mitigations. Should Berkeley seek and receive an injunction, the university would be barred from beginning construction on any projects under the plan. 

Central to the city’s argument is that days after the UC Board of Regents certified the plan’s environmental impact report last month, the university released new plans for renovating Memorial Stadium and building a new academic building nearby. Neither of the projects were identified in the long range plan. 

“The record is so unfortunate for the university on how they handled the stadium issue,” Rossmann said. “That’s an easy handle for a judge to grab.” 

The city also charges that the university stonewalled on turning over public documents about the two projects. According to the pleading, the city requested materials on Nov. 29, 2004, but didn’t receive them until after the Regents had certified the plan’s environmental document. 

University spokesperson Janet Gilmore said neither project had reached the level of detail for inclusion in the long range plan. 

Gilmore said the university has offered to pay the city $1.2 million for city services as part of deal to forego the lawsuit. The city, according to UC officials, had asked for between $3 and $5 million to cover the cost of city services which the university is exempt from paying. 

Bates said he had spoken with UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau on Tuesday, and that he was still hopeful the two sides could work out a deal when they meet at a court-mandated settlement meeting, expected to come in March. 

The lawsuit filed Wednesday does not seek repayment for past city services. However a judge could stipulate a settlement calling on the university to pay a set amount to mitigate the effects of its plan, Rossmann said. 

City officials say they have already spent $70,000 on the lawsuit and have budgeted $250,000 should the case go to trial. Additionally, the city is considering future lawsuits to compel the university to pay city sewer and parking fees. 

Neighborhood leaders, who have pushed the city to proceed with litigation over the long range plan, remained wary that the city would not aggressively pursue the case. 

“Even with the lawsuit I still feel a bit uncomfortable,” said Roger Van Ouytsel, who lives just north of campus. “I know the city really wants to work with UC and I fear that we’ll be left out of the process and the neighbors will suffer. For us,” he added, “It’s important that some of the money will go to protect the quality of life in the neighborhoods.” 

Dean Metzger, head of the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association just south of campus, urged the city to proceed with an injunction to put pressure on the university. 

“The lawsuit doesn’t do anything but put the university on notice that they have to file a response,” he said. 

To receive an injunction, Rossmann said the city would have to move beyond the pleadings and prove the merits of the case.  

The most interesting argument offered by the city, Rossmann added, is its contention that UC’s system-wide master plan used by UC Berkeley to justify its enrollment increase violated state environmental law and required a separate environmental review. The city argues that the master plan, which calls for 63,000 new students system-wide and 4,000 at UC Berkeley by 2010, divided what was essentially a system-wide undertaking in to separate pieces.  

“Such segmentation,” the city’s pleading reads, “avoids full disclosure of its environmental impacts and thus, violates CEQA’s mandate that environmental analysis be carried out for the project as a whole.” 

The pleadings neglect prior concerns raised by the city that the university offered no guarantees that it would abide by the city’s general plan. Also left out is the city’s contention that the university, in order to minimize the stated neighborhood impacts, had illegally separated out other long-term planning projects, including the long range plan for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Richmond Field Station. 

ª